Mod+ 256. DR. DONALD DEGRACIA, WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Western science is steeped in untruths these days, and the system is gamed so that the promulgation of untruth is actively rewarded. We think of ourselves as rational, educated people, capable of objectively evaluating what is real, when actually there's an enormous amount of (not necessarily intentional) self-deception. We're as steeped in superstition as we ever were, but sticking the label "accepted science" on something is meant to make it true. Well, it ain't always so, any more than with religious doctrine.

and, "twas ever thus." Don's point about "world weariness" seems to fit here.
 
Materialists make a mistake in assuming the laws of nature have any coercive power that can be used for a priori exclusion of anomalous phenomena. But it seems to me immaterialists make a similar mistake in assuming that the apparent revelations of particular practices are definitive.

great stuff!

Beyond that, it's not clear to me what separates that which is Maya from that which isn't. How does a Whole like Brahman become the Many, the various individual (and apparently illusory) subjective perspectives existing in this world (or beyond)?
reminds me of:
“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
 
I think my post would only have been ironic if I had intended any kindness by writing it, but I assure you I did not. The deliciousness of the irony doesn't stem from your delusion, which you share with every man and which is as common as dirt. The delight is in pure appreciation of the genius of maya.
Delight in reification, is not for me.
 
Well [AFAICTell] We know the laws of physics don't make things happen, which [AFAICTell] doesn't leave us with many good candidates for explanation unless we allow for some kind of teleology...

from your above link (really hope I can talk to Talbott some day):
"if we restrict ourselves to the sphere of our mathematical explanation and do not smuggle in qualitative aspects of the phenomenon lying outside the explanation, then we no longer even know whether we're dealing with a leaf or rock! The explanation, in its own terms and despite all its precision, gives us no means to distinguish between the two. We highlight a law equally implicit in both leafy and rocky phenomena by sacrificing everything distinctive in those phenomena to the single, implicit aspect we are looking for."
 
The question reminds me of podcast nr 23 with buddhist scholar Allan Wallace. As I recall one of Wallace's points was that the introduction of meditation as a scientific tool for observation of mental states would propell the science of psychology forward just like the introduction of the telescope propelled the science of astronomy forward.
great point. I think Jeffery Schwartz's work with OCD proves this. BTW just finished: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18684302-obsessed
 
Hi Michael

Thank you for the perceptive comments! Man, don't get me started on the corruption of modern science! Luckily I don't have to say too much. Henry Bauer wrote a book "Dogmatism in Science and Medicine" that spells out a lot of this. I recently reviewed the book for the Journal of Scientific Exploration and have attached it if you are interested. Thanks,
Don

Thanks for the article, Don, which I will read with interest and may comment on later. The topic of the corruption of modern science is frequently discussed here at Skeptiko. I think your own president Eisenhower foresaw it in his farewell address:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields…”

“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity...”

“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
 
Alex caught this and brought the discussion back to a more practical level. I think it was wholly appropriate as Alex knows his audience and was gearing the discussion the way he thought best in that context

but that doesn't give enough respect to the "practical level." I think there is a lot to gained by trying to integrate the wonderfully rich and very deep wisdom of yoga with the practical aspects of living, being a good person, raising kids/family, being a good friend. I have the intuitive sense that this is more than "just maya." It seems to me that the best quick and dirty measure of ones attachment/non-attachment in/to maya is how they deal with the "practical level."

The strange blending of Buddhism and Atheism (only in the West :)) that Allan Wallace brilliantly counters in the article seems to fit here: http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/ma...ted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/
 
Thanks for the article, Don, which I will read with interest and may comment on later. The topic of the corruption of modern science is frequently discussed here at Skeptiko. I think your own president Eisenhower foresaw it in his farewell address:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields…”

“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity...”

“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Dang, I was hoping to put off reading this for a couple of days... no way I can do that now :)
 
but that doesn't give enough respect to the "practical level." I think there is a lot to gained by trying to integrate the wonderfully rich and very deep wisdom of yoga with the practical aspects of living, being a good person, raising kids/family, being a good friend. I have the intuitive sense that this is more than "just maya." It seems to me that the best quick and dirty measure of ones attachment/non-attachment in/to maya is how they deal with the "practical level."

The strange blending of Buddhism and Atheism (only in the West :)) that Allan Wallace brilliantly counters in the article seems to fit here: http://fpmt.org/mandala/archives/ma...ted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

You are right. Of course "it" is about living here and becoming as fully human as we can. I was really just pointing out that yoga has an ultimate pointer and that ultimate pointer moves beyond what we generally view as reality.

This Nisargadatta quote finds a nice middle ground, I think:

Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs to be done. -- Nisargadatta
 
I've now read the article, Don. I won't comment so much on your critique of the book, not least because I haven't myself read it, but I read with interest your comments on academic tenure in the U.S. I don't think we have the same thing exactly in the UK, or at least don't call it by the same name, though it's probably true that academia is becoming more and more staffed by people on temporary contracts with less security than in the past.

It strikes me that tenure is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, having tenure frees an academic from the burden of having to toady quite as much. On the other, not toadying does have its drawbacks, tenure notwithstanding. One only has to think about the fate of people who question whether HIV is the cause of AIDS; whether quasars are actually very distant and highly luminous bodies (relating in part to the challenging of the applicability of Doppler redshift to cosmic expansion); whether LENR has something to it or not; whether atmospheric CO2 concentration is the main climatic control knob, and so on. Question the orthodoxy, the knowledge monopoly, if you like, and you risk being ostracised, having your funding cut off, or being forced into doing menial work. Even possessing a Nobel prize confers no immunity.

The big red flag is the use of that word, "denier", and its derivatives, or of being labelled as "anti-science". A good example of social constructivism is Wikipedia. Look at the following statement from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AI..._denialists.27_claims_and_scientific_evidence

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence,[1][2] that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

I'm no expert, but I've investigated as far as any layman with a degree in zoology can, and it's by no means clear to me that HIV does actually cause AIDS. The evidence seems somewhat less than compelling to me. But regardless, why are so many scientific issues these days cast in terms of consensus versus denialism? Why can't there be healthy argument instead of seeking marginalisation of dissent? That alone rings alarm bells and tells me that there's a lot more than science going on here: politics and public policy is at stake. What's more, I think Joe public, who might not have any formal training in science, is increasingly cheesed off with the scientific establishment and smells a rat. Conversely, many highly-educated academics seem to simply swallow whole various legitimately challengeable hypotheses and bemoan what they obviously think of as the stupidity of the (wo)man on the street. Politicians and MSM reporters jump on the bandwagon and are alienating a fair proportion, perhaps in some cases the majority, of the electorate.

Cynicism and "world weariness" are on the increase, and one can't help but speculate that at some point the bubble will burst and force a reappraisal of how science is carried out. I suspect this is one reason why certain dogmas are so tenaciously hung on to: their proponents have to do that, because if any one of the big paradigms is shattered, perhaps particularly the CAGW hypothesis--because it has so many impacts on the lives of ordinary people--that could force a major re-think and heightened cautiousness on the part of governments when it comes to funding.

Rupert Sheldrake would like to see a small percentage of funding set aside explicitly to enable the exploration of minority scientific interests. It's not just the money: I think we need to make it respectable to be a dissenter. After all, many major scientific breakthroughs have come from outsiders who haven't bought into prevailing paradigms.

I think it's touch and go whether Western civilisation as we know it will continue its dominance in intellectual thought and creativity. We could be witnessing its slow suicide because it's losing the capacity to question: losing the intellectual curiosity that Eisenhower mentioned. Maybe it's necessary (inevitable?) that we go through this phase before we can emerge into more enlightened times, but at the moment, much seems completely FUBAR to me, and in quiet, desperate moments, I sometimes fear for the worst.
 
Last edited:
I think Maya, illusion, is the wrong word. Everything in the phenomenal world is real; the only illusion is how we perceive and interpret it. For heaven's sake, Maya is purportedly the means whereby Brahman/MAL is accomplishing its intention to experience itself. It's important and maybe even indispensable to that aim.

I sometimes think that some people want to marginalise the messy business of Maya and escape to a wonderful fairyland of enlightenment; but it's an integral part of existence and should in my view be embraced and respected. We shouldn't pretend, for example, that we are above having negative emotions like anger and resentment. They are there, they are real, and we should pay attention to them because they're telling us something about our actual spiritual state. I say accept them, come to terms with them, and don't attempt to shove them under the carpet where we can pretend they don't exist. I doubt very much whether that approach can ever lead to genuine spiritual advancement; it's probably another way of not being truthful with oneself.
 
Materialists make a mistake in assuming the laws of nature have any coercive power that can be used for a priori exclusion of anomalous phenomena. But it seems to me immaterialists make a similar mistake in assuming that the apparent revelations of particular practices are definitive.

Is there a definition of "immaterialist"? It seems a strange term since, no materer whether one thinks it primary or not, no one in physical can deny that material exists (even if just as experienced effect).

As for the comment about "similar mistake." Not so. Remember that as defined materialism states "there is nothing other than the physical." Most of those who have moved beyond simply state that to them it's clear that there is much beyond the physical. And this is one of those cases where I don't see how both viewpoints could be true.

Also as I keep pointing out, the materialist science methods that are part of most of us continue to lead to seeking out some sort of thing "out there" that will confer the stamp of proof. Yet, whatever the ultimate nature of primary consciousness, it is certain that learning more about it will not happen via intellectualizing or rationalization.
 
I think Maya, illusion, is the wrong word. Everything in the phenomenal world is real; the only illusion is how we perceive and interpret it. For heaven's sake, Maya is purportedly the means whereby Brahman/MAL is accomplishing its intention to experience itself. It's important and maybe even indispensable to that aim.

I sometimes think that some people want to marginalise the messy business of Maya and escape to a wonderful fairyland of enlightenment; but it's an integral part of existence and should in my view be embraced and respected. We shouldn't pretend, for example, that we are above having negative emotions like anger and resentment. They are there, they are real, and we should pay attention to them because they're telling us something about our actual spiritual state. I say accept them, come to terms with them, and don't attempt to shove them under the carpet where we can pretend they don't exist. I doubt very much whether that approach can ever lead to genuine spiritual advancement; it's probably another way of not being truthful with oneself.

An end to maya would mean an end to all existence, for maya is everything that is not Brahman. It is everything that has a name. Yoga begins at the true realization of the nature of the illusion of maya, for maya itself will always remain inscrutable, as you say. Full realization of the illusion of maya is the start, not the end of yoga. In a sense, when one is ready to begin yoga, one is already dead.

You are filled with ideas about what the fairyland of enlightenment is. About what maya is. About the best ways to live life. These ideas are the very blinders that inhibit one from seeing that ALL is maya. And maya is illusion. Ideas are lenses that obscure our vision. I know that is anathema to many and that is fine. There is nothing wrong with living in delusion in maya. It is quite unavoidable.
 
Has anyone ever done the science of yoga - or any other discipline from shamanic to esoteric - without knowing what they should expect?

It seems to me that if there is to be an inner science, you'd have to have people follow the steps while being ignorant of the revelations they'd receive.
 
Has anyone ever done the science of yoga - or any other discipline from shamanic to esoteric - without knowing what they should expect?

It seems to me that if there is to be an inner science, you'd have to have people follow the steps while being ignorant of the revelations they'd receive.

Good question. What do you think?

I think the only way to really find out is to pick a practice and begin. Where does it take you? What are the qualities of the "results?" What is your experience of the practice? What are your expectations of the practice? These disciplines are self-disciplines, right? We can't practice them on anyone else.
 
Straighten up there sir! Eyes forward, shoulders back! Good. Now . .a-ten-shun to detail. lol. I posted that response and I quoted a passage written by John McGowan.

Anyway, thanks much for explaining your perspective. Now if you can only make the leap beyond determinism you may well be forging paths that blaze into new territory. :) I won't hesitate to say that the idea of fate is incorrect and a little silly. The nature of the "patterns" is that they are all always being created anew. Linear time is a feature of physical realities but not of primary consciousness. I sometimes wonder if the originators of fate didn't mean something else - that reason/rationality are not the mechanisms for choice on the level of the "pattern". If they did mean that .then they were correct.

Thank you for this stimulating comment, Saiko. Please allow me to defend my position.

There are a couple levels on which I stand on determinism and these stem mainly from Eastern thinking, but also from current notions in science and math, but definitely not from the silly, simple-minded perspective of Western philosophy (e.g. the question "what is free will" as discussed in the kind of philosophy classes Pat Churchland conducts). I could get a little technical about it. It has to do with how networks function. In a network, the individual nodes are not independent, but are all mutually dependent. Without the proper math background, you will probably LOVE the term used in dynamics: it's called the "slaving" principle. I kid you not. But it is all mathematical and not a qualitative idea (please let me know if you want further info, I can provide references). It is analogous to how chaos theory misuses the word "chaos". Chaotic dynamical systems are not chaotic at all, but are 100% deterministic. Similarly with network dynamics, where the nodes are "slaved" to the total system.

Technically, in terms of physics, when things act independently, their total action is called "superposition" and is modeled adequately by linear addition. This can describe, for example, how a car or oven works. When things are dependent upon each other, their mutual interactions are nonlinear. Networks are nonlinear in how they act because the nodes mutually interact with each other. This is how bodies and ecosystems and the climate act. This is the type of determinism I am talking about, or one way to think of it at least.

I can give a concrete example that might make the idea plain. Your body. Your body is made of many organs. The organs can be thought of as network nodes that are slaved to the overall function of the body. The heart, liver, muscles, brain etc do not all do their own thing. They are in no sense "free". Each serves a very specific, and unique function in the whole system. The loss of any of the pieces means the end of the system. Hindus call this same idea "dharma". If one of the pieces of the body starts to act "free", starts to act independent of the whole body, we call the condition "cancer" and it kills the body.

I submit that this is the general condition of all relative existence, what anon is calling "Maya", which is a proper term to use. All of the different things that exist in manifestation, from galaxies to planets, to animals, to plants and people and organs in bodies, to cells, to atoms and molecules, to quarks and whatever is below these, all of these are nodes in a vast incomprehensible network we call "existence". Every node conditions every other node. This is not a new idea even in the West. Mach said it, which was Einstein's basis for formulating general relativity.

For example: pick your nose right now. Please do it. And then know that you affected a galaxy outside of the Earth's light cone, and also affected sublime realities in the deepest planes of existence, without even knowing you did so, just by picking your nose. You may laugh, but what I just said is true. Every single thing you do affects every other single thing that exists. It is just how it is all put together.

So, the determinism I am talking about means that everyone has a unique and extremely specific role to play in the whole system. As souls, we are analogous to the organs in our physical body. Lose one and the whole system stops (which is, in principle, impossible. Thank God for that).

None of this is philosophical. It is physics, and chemistry and biology. It is empirical. It is psychology and sociology, and it is yoga. There are invisible forces acting between all identifiable pieces of creation, moving them to and fro and moving them to exactly where they are supposed to be.

Now, given this situation, it does not preclude us, in our minds, from being ignorant of this vast cosmic network of interactions, and our place in it. It does not preclude of from having the idea in our minds that we are free to act as we please. This reality is perfectly allowed and our entire society is a testament to this approach to living.

But just because we can think whatever we want does not mean whatever we think it true. This type of thinking is false with respect to how God made the universe.

I do not think it is the most intelligent way to think. I think it is more intelligent to slowly, ever so slowly, seek to be aware of these invisible forces and then figure out how to act in harmony with them, instead of living under the delusion we can do whatever we want, and then getting all upset when things don't go our way. The idea of "fate" that you express is simply a cry-baby reaction to one's ignorance and delusions, and of not having even a faint sense of the interconnectedness of everything. So, fate, used in this sense is not a little silly, it is a lot silly, and is a sign of total ignorance of the way things are.

We are most free when we are what we are supposed to be. That means we move with the whole, know our place in the whole. This is at least the ideal. This is why I often think to myself that little Christian prayer "God give me the wisdom..."

So, my point is, there is an intelligent approach to determinism. Do not let stupid ideas blind your from smarter ideas. Dawkins thinks he is smart because he can intellectually knock down stupid ideas of what God is. He is not smart enough to understand smart ideas about God, like, for example, the stuff Leibniz wrote, or what Cantor wrote, or what Schrodinger wrote. Please don't be like Dawkins. Like Alex says, people like that are just intellectual bullies and they are not smart enough to know anything important, and that is why they act the way they do.

Thanks, Saiko, for providing the occasion for letting me rant!

My very best wishes,

Don
 
Back
Top